Does practice make perfect? The impact of hospital and surgeon volume on complications after intra-abdominal procedures.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the regionalization of surgical procedures. However, evidence on the volume-outcome relationship for emergency intra-abdominal surgery is not well-synthesized. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarize evidence regarding the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on complications. METHODS: We identified cohort studies assessing the impact of hospital/surgeon volume on postoperative complications after emergency intra-abdominal procedures, with data collected after the year 2000 through a literature search without language restriction in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. A weighted overall complication rate was calculated, and a random effect regression model was used for a summary odds ratio. A sensitivity analysis with the removal of studies contributing to heterogeneity was performed (PROSPERO: CRD42022358879). RESULTS: The search yielded 2,153 articles, of which 9 cohort studies were included and determined to be good quality according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. These studies reported outcomes for the following procedures: cholecystectomy, colectomy, appendectomy, small bowel resection, peptic ulcer repair, adhesiolysis, laparotomy, and hernia repair. Eight studies (2,358,093 patients) with available data were included in the meta-analysis. Low hospital volume was not significantly associated with higher complications. In the sensitivity analysis, low hospital volume was significantly associated with higher complications when appropriate heterogeneity was achieved. Low surgeon volume was associated with higher complications, and these findings remained consistent in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: We found that hospital and surgeon volume was significantly associated with higher complications in patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery when appropriate heterogeneity was achieved.

From admission to vaccination: COVID-19 vaccination patterns and their relationship with hospitalization in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination rates in the hospitalized trauma population are not fully characterized and may lag behind the general population. This study aimed to outline COVID-19 vaccination trends in hospitalized trauma patients and examine how hospitalization influences COVID-19 vaccination rates. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective institutional study using our trauma registry paired with the COVID-19 vaccination ENCLAVE registry. We included patients ≥18 years admitted between April 21, 2021 and November 30, 2022. Our primary outcome was the change in vaccination posthospitalization, and secondary analyzed outcomes included temporal trends of vaccination in trauma patients and predictors of non-vaccination. We compared pre and posthospitalization weekly vaccination rates. We performed joinpoint regression to depict temporal trends and multivariate regression for predictors of nonvaccination. RESULTS: The rate of administration of the first vaccine dose increased in the week after hospitalization (P = .018); however, this increase was not sustained in the following weeks. The percentage of unvaccinated patients declined faster in the general population in Massachusetts compared to the hospitalized trauma population. By the conclusion of the study, 27.1% of the trauma population was unvaccinated, whereas <5% of the Massachusetts population was unvaccinated. Urban residence, having multiple hospitalizations, and experiencing moderate to severe frailty were associated with vaccination. Conversely, being in the age groups 18 to 45 years and 46 to 64 years, as well as having Medicaid or self-pay insurance, were linked to being unvaccinated. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization initially increased the rate of administration of the first vaccine dose in trauma patients, but the effect was not sustained. By the conclusion of the study period, a greater percentage of trauma patients were unvaccinated compared to the general population of Massachusetts. Strategies for sustained health care integration need to be developed to address this ongoing challenge in the high-risk trauma population.

Analyzing the Impact of Concomitant COVID-19 Infection on Outcomes in Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 infection at the time of traumatic injury remains understudied. Previous studies demonstrate that the rate of COVID-19 vaccination among trauma patients remains lower than in the general population. This study aims to understand the impact of concomitant COVID-19 infection on outcomes in trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥18 years old admitted to a level I trauma center from March 2020 to December 2022. Patients tested for COVID-19 infection using a rapid antigen/PCR test were included. We matched patients using 2:1 propensity accounting for age, gender, race, comorbidities, vaccination status, injury severity score (ISS), type and mechanism of injury, and GCS at arrival. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), Intensive Care Unit (ICU) LOS, 30-day readmission, and major complications. RESULTS: Of the 4448 patients included, 168 (3.8%) were positive (COV+). Compared with COVID-19-negative (COV-) patients, COV+ patients were similar in age, sex, BMI, ISS, type of injury, and regional AIS. The proportion of White and non-Hispanic patients was higher in COV- patients. Following matching, 154 COV+ and 308 COV- patients were identified. COVID-19-positive patients had a higher rate of mortality (7.8% vs 2.6%; P = .010), major complications (15.6% vs 8.4%; P = .020), and thrombotic complications (3.9% vs .6%; P = .012). Patients also had a longer hospital LOS (median, 9 vs 5 days; P < .001) and ICU LOS (median, 5 vs 3 days; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection have higher mortality and morbidity in the matched population. Focused interventions aimed at recognizing this high-risk group and preventing COVID-19 infection within it should be undertaken.

First do no harm: Predicting futility of intervention in geriatric emergency general surgery.

BACKGROUND: Emergent surgical conditions are common in geriatric patients, often necessitating major operative procedures on frail patients. Understanding risk profiles is crucial for decision-making and establishing goals of care. METHODS: We queried NSQIP 2015-2019 for patients ≥65 years undergoing open abdominal surgery for emergency general surgery conditions. Logistic regression was used to identify 30-day mortality predictors. RESULTS: Of 41,029 patients, 5589 (13.6 â€‹%) died within 30 days of admission. The highest predictors of mortality were ASA status 5 (aOR 9.7, 95 â€‹% CI,3.5-26.8, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), septic shock (aOR 4.9, 95 â€‹% CI,4.5-5.4, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), and dialysis (aOR 2.1, 95 â€‹% CI,1.8-2.4, p â€‹< â€‹0.001). Without risk factors, mortality rates were 11.9 â€‹% after colectomy and 10.2 â€‹% after small bowel resection. Patients with all three risk factors had a mortality rate of 79.4 â€‹% and 100 â€‹% following colectomy and small bowel resection, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults undergoing emergent open abdominal surgery, septic shock, ASA status, and dialysis were strongly associated with futility of surgical intervention. These findings can inform goals of care and informed decision-making.

A core outcome set for acute necrotizing pancreatitis: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma modified Delphi method consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) has changed dramatically over the past 20 years including the use of less invasive techniques, the timing of interventions, nutritional management, and antimicrobial management. This study sought to create a core outcome set (COS) to help shape future research by establishing a minimal set of essential outcomes that will facilitate future comparisons and pooling of data while minimizing reporting bias. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was performed through involvement of ANP content experts. Each expert proposed a list of outcomes for consideration, and the panel anonymously scored the outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale. Core outcome consensus defined a priori as >70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 points and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3 points. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds with interclass correlation trends used to determine the end of the study. RESULTS: A total of 19 experts agreed to participate in the study with 16 (84%) participating through study completion. Forty-three outcomes were initially considered with 16 reaching consensuses after four rounds of the modified Delphi process. The final COS included outcomes related to mortality, organ failure, complications, interventions/management, and social factors. CONCLUSION: Through an iterative consensus process, content experts agreed on a COS for the management of ANP. This will help shape future research to generate data suitable for pooling and other statistical analyses that may guide clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.